Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

You can't build a car out of iron ore either. You have to smelt it. You have to form it. You also need to gather other materials (or make them) like rubber, plastics, aluminum, copper, tungsten. various rare earths, lead, sulfur, very pure silicon, tin, antimony, glass, and of course the refined hydrocarbons to use as fuel.
Electric cars further require lots of lithium oxides to be smelted and formed into batteries in strict cleanroom like conditions, and of course the electrical grid and the fuels to run it are necessary to fuel this car as well.

A lot of work goes into designing a car.

not to mention designing it intelligently.....
 
Nobody knows. Why attribute a false creation by a magical deity you describe in detail from that state of evidence? That’s your monkey brain talking.

The best we have based on evidence is a Big Bang theory. Creationism isn’t even a theory, it’s a fairy tale.

The Big Bang theory is a fairy tale!
 
Science has no proofs. It is an open functional system. It is not possible to prove any theory True.
The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science.

there is a scientific theory of evolution, but it is limited to variations within a species that in the extreme case may result in a new species of the same creature, being unable to cross produce with the creature of origin......
 
The Big Bang theory is a fairy tale!

Maybe maybe not lol?

Even the first chapters of Genesis imply a sequence to the act of creation. God said “let there be light” and the rest follows from there. Well, if all the matter in the universe was allowed[?] to escape from something like a singularity, before the energy coalesced into matter, the universe would be a pretty bright place. To put it mildly.

I think if more theists had a better understanding of the BB they’d find it’s maybe not such a bad theory after all lol.
 
Nah. They change color with the seasons, just like some owls, rabbits, and foxes. That's not evolution.

Or it's yet another fake fossil. There's quite a market for these, you know.

Jesus fucking Christ, nutjob. 45 posts in a row??? Posting began a 11:50 and ended at 01:41. Did you cum on your keyboard afterward?
 
the fact it's impossible is why the claim that fins turned into legs is untestable.......and if it's untestable, it cannot be a scientific theory........

The fossil record and comparative anatomy unequivocally demostrstes fins turned into legs, and vice versa.

Your only move left is to claim the fossils are fake and were put out there by Satan to trick us.
 
Nah. They change color with the seasons, just like some owls, rabbits, and foxes. That's not evolution.

Or it's yet another fake fossil. There's quite a market for these, you know.
you obviously never heard of the peppered moth one nanosecond before you read my post.

Rabitts and foxes have fur. Moths don't.

Peppered moths do not change color with the seasons.

The random genetic mutation for dark colored moths was selectively favored in the 19th century because of environmental conditions.

Complaining about fake fossils is the last refuge of the young earth science denialist
 
Even the first chapters of Genesis imply a sequence to the act of creation. God said “let there be light” and the rest follows from there. Well, if all the matter in the universe was allowed[?] to escape from something like a singularity, before the energy coalesced into matter, the universe would be a pretty bright place. To put it mildly.

I think if more theists had a better understanding of the BB they’d find it’s maybe not such a bad theory after all lol.

No, the universe was opaque for the first 300,000 years before conditions allowed the free motion of photons and the universe became transparent.

Even then there was no optical light a human eye could register. Electromagnetic energy was in the microwave spectrum. That is why it is called the cosmic microwave background radiation.

Optical light in the universe would not have been present for hundreds of millions of years after that, when nucleosynthesis got underway and the first stars formed.
 
The fossil record and comparative anatomy unequivocally demostrstes fins turned into legs, and vice versa.

bullshit.....the fossil record demonstrates that there were creatures with fins and creatures with legs.........the rest is just your imagination.......or perhaps your religion, depending on how devoted you are to it.......
 
you obviously never heard of the peppered moth one nanosecond before you read my post.

Rabitts and foxes have fur. Moths don't.

Peppered moths do not change color with the seasons.

The random genetic mutation for dark colored moths was selectively favored in the 19th century because of environmental conditions.

Complaining about fake fossils is the last refuge of the young earth science denialist

Agreed, but you're wasting your time talking to a clear case of severe mental illness as proved by his posts and his manifesto linked in his signature.

The good news is that he always posts 10-20 posts thus upping a thread count. :thup:

JPXQodv.jpg
 
Agreed, but you're wasting your time talking to a clear case of severe mental illness as proved by his posts and his manifesto linked in his signature.

The good news is that he always posts 10-20 posts thus upping a thread count. :thup:

JPXQodv.jpg

A lunatic for sure. My entire notification wall was filled up with responses from him/her
 
bullshit.....the fossil record demonstrates that there were creatures with fins and creatures with legs.........the rest is just your imagination.......or perhaps your religion, depending on how devoted you are to it.......

The hypothesis that fin-bearing animals evolved into leg-bearing animals is emminently testable by careful field observation and study of the fossil and comparative anatomy.

Your only move at this point is to holler Satan created the fossil record to deceive us
 
No, the universe was opaque for the first 300,000 years before conditions allowed the free motion of photons and the universe became transparent.

Even then there was no optical light a human eye could register. Electromagnetic energy was in the microwave spectrum. That is why it is called the cosmic microwave background radiation.

Optical light in the universe would not have been present for hundreds of millions of years after that, when nucleosynthesis got underway and the first stars formed.

Matter in the form of energy gives off radiation and light in Genesis can be interpreted as radiation since I doubt the ancient Hebrews had a word for Gamma rays lol.

As a broad outline, the first verses of Genesis describes a distinct beginning to the universe began by an Entity that exists separately from it.

Theologians would say exists ‘in eternity’ which could be rendered as the absence of time since time is an emergent property of the universe.

It all fits.
 
Matter in the form of energy gives off radiation and light in Genesis can be interpreted as radiation since I doubt the ancient Hebrews had a word for Gamma rays lol.

As a broad outline, the first verses of Genesis describes a distinct beginning to the universe began by an Entity that exists separately from it.

Theologians would say exists ‘in eternity’ which could be rendered as the absence of time since time is an emergent property of the universe.

It all fits.

Radiation is not synonymous with and does not imply optical light.

The electromagnetic spectrum is enormous, with optical light only comprising a tiny fraction.

It is quite a stretch for you to claim the reference to light in Genesis actually refers to microwave radiation.
 
Matter in the form of energy gives off radiation and light in Genesis can be interpreted as radiation since I doubt the ancient Hebrews had a word for Gamma rays lol.

As a broad outline, the first verses of Genesis describes a distinct beginning to the universe began by an Entity that exists separately from it.

Theologians would say exists ‘in eternity’ which could be rendered as the absence of time since time is an emergent property of the universe.

It all fits.

Magical and imaginative interpretations. Dude, the Sun rises every morning and sets every night. Occam's Razor says that's where the ancients got the idea for Light and Darkness. There's no fucking way they could have understood Gamma radiation.

Good luck with your Creationism puzzle. It'll never allow you to pass a Biology 101 course, but you dropped out years ago so it doesn't matter. :laugh:
 
Radiation does not imply optical light.

The electromagnetic spectrum is enormous, with optical light only comprising a fraction.

It is quite a stretch for you to claim the reference to light in Genesis actually refers to microwave radiation.

Agreed. There's also a lot of confusion in Genesis regarding the nature of the Tree, the nature of the Serpent in Genesis 3 plus this curious statement in Genesis 3:22:

"And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Who the fuck is "us"? Knowing good and evil makes man like God and his drinking buddies? There's a Tree of Knowledge and a Tree of Immortality? Obviously metaphors, but of what? Also, Genesis has indications of multiple writers and editors. Too many inconsistencies to be one author telling a single coherent story.
 
Magical and imaginative interpretations. Dude, the Sun rises every morning and sets every night. Occam's Razor says that's where the ancients got the idea for Light and Darkness. There's no fucking way they could have understood Gamma radiation.

Good luck with your Creationism puzzle. It'll never allow you to pass a Biology 101 course, but you dropped out years ago so it doesn't matter. :laugh:

This is why American Christians are perceived as morons.

They insist on trying to read the Bible literally, which is just bad theology outside of fundamentalist Protestant circles.
 
This is why American Christians are perceived as morons.

They insist on trying to read the Bible literally, which is just bad theology outside of fundamentalist Protestant circles.

So no Catholics take the Bible literally?
 
Back
Top